Marketing Pop Culture

Time.com's 50 Best Web sites

Fellow blogger David Berkowitz reached out to me on behalf of Time.com 50 Best Web sites.  Definitely an interesting list.  I say that because I don't recognize most of the sites.  The one site I use regularly is Imeem (#31), and I just added TinyURL (#8) to my toolbar after seeing it on the list.  I visit UrbanDictionary (#9) only occasionally.  Interesting that MySpace isn't on the list.  Like Max, I, too, found it noteworthy that Google isn't, either.  However, I think that has more to do with Google's ubiquity vs. any lack of popularity.  What I mean is that (almost) everyone uses Google, so we think about it as much as we think about how cool it is that light comes on when you flick the switch.

So, if I'm not on most of these sites, where am I, you ask?  Here's my (partial) list:

• The Daily Swarm (great music news aggregator, so it's my homepage)
• Google (Gmail, Reader, Feedburner, Analytics)
• Marketing Pop Culture (via the Typepad platform)
• Bold As Love (my other blog on Black rock)
• Facebook
• Twitter
• Remember The Milk
• Del.icio.us
• LinkedIn

Where do you hang out online?

Rob's Rules of Social Media Etiquette

I belong to several social networks.  Overall, I enjoy the experience and they're all useful for different reasons.  Clearly, we've all been given unprecedented access to one another.  But because the barriers to contact are so much lower, manners and discretion become paramount.  I mean, just because you can connect, should you?  More to the point, how should you?

What I really can't stand is when complete strangers want to connect with me, but just let the system send out the standard note.  From LinkedIn, I get stuff like this:

I'd like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn.

Okay.  Who are you?

More importantly, why do I want to connect with you?  What's the value to me of being added to your network?  I'm not asking this out of arrogance.  Rather, my goal is to keep my network valuable and useful to me and to those in it.  Part of that is predicated on trust and, in the case of LinkedIn, a familiarity with a person's expertise.  When it comes time to connect people, I want to be able to say without hesitation that here are two smart and good people who can really benefit from knowing each other.

Fair questions, I think.

Now, here's a good example of a note that I got from somebody who wanted to connect on LinkedIn. 

Rob,
Greetings. Trust all is well your way.
How would you like to join my professional network?
Kindly consider my invitation.
peace

-Brian

I got to know him through having him speak at one of my conferences.  We've talked a couple of time after that.  However, he's smart enough not to assume, even though he's got a big title and runs a big piece of business for his agency.

All I'm asking for here is some context.  'Cause I can tell you this: If I don't know you and you haven't included a note with your request, I'm going to decline. And there's the issue of network meaningfulness that Max Kalehoff addressed in a post on Twitter.

So here are some things to keep in mind when you reach out to me (or anyone you don't really know):

1. Provide some context.  Introduce yourself, what you do and why you're reaching out.  Something prompted you to press that "connect," "add to network," or "add as a friend" button.  Tell me what that it was.
2. Don't be lazy.  And that's exactly what you're saying when you use system boilerplate copy or, worse, send no note at all.  Laziness says you're not really interested in me and that you may have more interest in who I know.
3. Understand that you're a stranger to me: Mutual friends, school affiliations and memberships in LinkedIn groups don't matter to me.  Unless we've met offline, done business or someone I already know has recommended you YOU'RE STILL A STRANGER, and you'll need to give me some more information.  See #1.
4. It's about relationships.  Quality, not quantity, rules.  I don't want my networks--particularly LinkedIn--to turn into the digital version of collecting a lot of useless business cards.  I want to connect with other people who are interested in developing mutually beneficial relationships.  If you haven't done so yet, this would be a great time to read Keith Ferrazzi's "Never Eat Alone".  Then get at me. 

Bottom line: If you're beginning a new relationship digitally, think what first impression you want to leave.

When it comes to digital, it's all about the niche

While covering the AlwaysOn Conference, paidContent's David Kaplan highlighted some of the discussion around the fact that marketers still seem to be behind the curve when it comes to understanding social networks.  Here, he quotes Ben Bajarian, president of Creative Strategies

. . .when it comes to finding a place for a brand when it comes to digital, "the future lies in vertical niches, where people connect around specific like-minded things. You can get into people who love animals and you can drill down further to a deep-vested interest, such as in a particular kind of dog. At that point, that's when you're valuable from an eyeball standpoint. When the advertiser is there for the same reason."

While Bajarian's focus is digital, the point he's making could apply to marketing in general.  It might bot be a bad idea to look at the development of niche strategies, as was indicated in an AdAge article this  past summer: Niches are about the narrow, not the small.

Facebook and brands in socially networked environments

So it’s only been a month since I’ve really been active on Facebook (FB) and I like what I see.  First, let me say that I’m on both platforms. FB is a different kind of experience than MySpace, largely because it seems easier to navigate and customize.  The one big drawback of FB is that you have to be a user in order to see pages.  That limits its usefulness as a business building platform, since your page is not open to the world. 

But once you’re in, you find that FB is highly flexible.  In fact, thanks to the News Feed section, which give updates on what’s happening in your network, you learn a lot:: Who’s become friends; who’s modified their profile; and who’s added new applications.  It’s the latter that strikes me as interesting.

The big question is: What’s the role of a brand within a socially networked environment?  Is it enough for a brand to have lots of friends?  Even giving this only the most superficial of thought, the answer would seem to be no.  After all, having lots “friends” doesn’t necessarily mean that a brand has high engagement.

Which is where FB applications come in.  I haven’t subscribed to many, but I like the idea behind them, particularly as they work within FB.

The 21st Century Hustle Blog

Last summer, I hipped you  to Ali Muhammad's 21st Century Hustle magazine.  Good news is that he's started a blog.  So, in between the quarterly issues of the magazine, you can check in on the development of Urban 2.0 and all those involved in Global Grind Culture.

Ali's blog is here.  You can also get some background on Ali and the magazine via the podcast I conducted with him in August, which is available here.

New Media, New Companies

Scott Karp has been examining the changing media landscape, and specifically how it’s impacting the publishing industry.  He continues his track record of thought-provoking posts today in a post that further delves into the nature of the transformation that the media industry is undergoing.  For me, here’s the clincher:

Individuals can now make a good living as content creators, without ever creating or becoming part of a scale content business. What’s more disruptive, however, is that in the market for original content, the attention economy is draining dollars out of the cash economy. There remains a zero sum game for consumer attention, so for every minute a consumer spends with content created by an entity whose compensation is in form of attention, there’s a minute not being spend on content created by a for-profit entity.

This puts into perspective the teeth-gnashing, sabre-rattling and legal shenanigans by the RIAA, Viacom, and every other media company that has yet to figure out a new business model.  Consumers will never relinquish the power they now have.  So what’s taking all of these companies so long to create new business models?  Is it that they’re incapable of doing so?  Is it that they’ve already created it, but their companies are bogged down under the weight of the old model?  In order to compete in this attention economy, perhaps these media companies will have to follow the layoff leads of companies like MTV, The New York Times and Time Inc. 

So, if consumer-created media is competing with media company-created media, what will the new, new media company look like?

You can read Scott's full post here.

Web 2.0 defined in less that 5 minutes

One of the latest buzzwords that's being thrown around lately is "Web 2.0"  But what exactly does it mean?  I could point you to the Wikipedia definition that describes it by employing such words as "network as platform," "architecture of participation," or "Web-as- participation-platform".  All of this may or may not give you a better sense of what's being talked about.  In many respects, it doesn't answer the original question. 

So, I point you to a video produced by Kansas State University Assistant Professor of Cultural Anthropology Michael Wesch.  In addition to being a powerful visual document, it suggests that Web 2.0 will redefine the way we think about things such as privacy, governance and the ways we relate to one another.  It's less that five (5) minutes long, so take a look.

Hat tip to Daniela Barbosa, a member of the Media 2.0 Workgroup, who hipped me to it.

Social Media and the ROI of Handraisers

Right on, originally uploaded by dreadfuldan.

 

I just got back from the PMA’s 28th Annual Promotion Marketing Law Conference.  The short synopsis is that lawyers are working hard to get their arms and brains around the same issues that are bedeviling their colleagues on the marketing side of the business: How do you monetize all of this social media stuff?

But maybe that’s not the point.  Maybe the real point of all of this social media and consumer-generated content is to get people to identify themselves as the ones who actually give a shit about your brand.  Think about it:  If someone spends their free time creating content about/around your brand, then you can assume that they’ve got strong feelings for it.  Now, those feelings could be good or bad.  But what they’re telling you is that they’re not apathetic.  In terms of ROI, there’s no return from those who don’t care/aren’t interested in your brand.  Those who have something good to say about your brand are your loyals, and you probably have sophisticated models for figuring out ROI, ROI, CLV, and all those other acronyms.  Those who feel strongly in the negative are—depending on how you handle them—potential loyals, and they can potentially add to your bottom line in the long run.

So, out of the 6 billion people on the planet, here are some who’ve noticed your brand and are engaged with it.  Now, let’s sort: Who are they?  Where are they?  What types of communication will they respond to?  How ready are they to buy what you’re selling?  The point is that once people have identified themselves, they can now be dealt with using traditional means of moving them along the purchase path.  They’re aware of the brand, so the question becomes how do you move them to consideration, trial and, potentially, repeat usage?

So maybe there’s no direct ROI from blogs, podcasts or online community spaces.  Maybe that’s okay.  In a world where consumers burrow further down into their own personal niches, perhaps social media is what draws them out, even for a moment, to make their interest in your brand known.  Maybe being involved in social media is just a cost of doing business these days.  What you do after they’ve identified themselves is up to you.